Trump Indicted for Conspiring to Overturn the 2020 Election

[Voronwë the Faithful]

A very interesting wrinkle in the appeal of the denial of Trump's motion for absolute presidential immunity that has threatened to delay the trial, perhaps until after the election. A group called American Oversight has filed a motion asking to file an Amicus brief, in which they argue persuasively that because Trump's argument for immunity is not specifically stated in the Constitution or a statute, he should not be entitled to interlocutory appeal (an appeal before the trial) and that therefore the trial should not be delayed. The SCO's own opposition brief is due today, and we will see if they too make that argument.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The SCO did not make that argument and instead appear to concede that the DCCoA has jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Very strong brief otherwise. They do request that the court grant "mandate" within 5 days of issuing their ruling so that Trump can't string things out for long.

[Frelga]

I wish Biden would come out and say he wants Trump on the ballot. The 14th doesn't apply. Then thanks him for the playbook describing how to never leave office and the appreciation of knowing he can't be charged, no matter what he does. And ends it with " My Fellow Americans , I'm not ever going to leave the White House and there is nothing you can do to me. "

Which would confirm exactly why SCOTUS will keep Trump off the ballots and why Trump will never get immunity

[Voronwë the Faithful]

The COA panel has granted the motion of American Oversight to participate as an amicus and further ordered that counsel be prepared to address at oral argument on January 9, 2024, any inquiries by the Court regarding discrete issues raised in the briefs filed by amici curiae. So they appear to be taking the issue that they do not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal now seriously. I still doubt that they will just dismiss the appeal altogether on that grounds, but we'll see.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is just utterly bizarre.

[N.E. Brigand]

And today Donald Trump asked the court to hold Jack Smith and his team in contempt for having continued to file motions while proceedings in this case are stayed pending appeal.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Unlike most of the comments that I have seen about that motion, I think it has a fair amount of validity. I don't think Judge Chutkan will hold them in contempt or sanction them, but I do think she should and will order them to stop making filings and taking other actions while the stay is in place.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

For what it is worth, here is what a posted in response to Anna Bower (who is who N.E.B. links to above).

[N.E. Brigand]

Mediate has a recording of Donald Trump's sometime advisor Roger Stone in fall 2020 saying this to a NYPC police officer:

"It’s time to do it. Let’s go find Swalwell. It’s time to do it. Then we’ll see how brave the rest of them are. It’s time to do it. It’s either [Rep. Jerry] Nadler or [Rep. Eric] Swalwell has to die before the election. They need to get the message. Let’s go find Swalwell and get this over with. I’m just not putting up with this shit anymore."

Stone is also heard saying this about Aaron Zelinksy, a member of Robert Mueller's team:

"He needs to be punished. You have to abduct him and punish him. That has to be done. It will be easy to abduct him because he is a weakling."

Stone claims these recordings are AI-generated "deep fakes".

[RoseMorninStar]

[N.E. Brigand]

There were reports today that Special Prosecutor Jack Smith was the target of a "swatting" attack on Dec. 25th and that Judge Tanya Chutkan was the target of such an attack last week.

Swatting is when someone using a spoofed phone number calls police to falsely report an emergency at the target's address. The goal is to get the police to accidentally injure or kill the target.

[N.E. Brigand]

If I'm reading this correctly, one of Donald Trump's attorneys said in court this morning that a president who assassinates his political opponent can only be prosecuted for that crime if he's first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate for it.

What Trump's attorneys fail to consider is that if they were to prevail with this argument in the end (i.e., at the Supreme Court), President Biden would be legally permitted (and arguably morally obliged*) to have Trump arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo, or worse.

*If Republicans succeed in changing the U.S. executive from a presidency to a dictatorship, better that it start as a benevolent dictatorship. "But it would stop with that, alas!"

[N.E. Brigand]

If I'm reading this correctly, one of Donald Trump's attorneys said in court this morning that a president who assassinates his political opponent can only be prosecuted for that crime if he's first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate for it.

What Trump's attorneys fail to consider is that if they were to prevail with this argument in the end (i.e., at the Supreme Court), President Biden would be legally permitted ... to have Trump arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo, or worse.

Or as Eric Columbus put it: "Trump's position is that Biden can kill him if 34 senators approve."

Columbus also notes that Donald Trump's attorneys argued in 2021 that he couldn't be impeached after leaving office -- and a number of Republican senators said that's why they were voting against conviction -- so what Trump's argument today amounts to is the claim that president should be able to murder their opponents during their final weeks in office. (Or resigns right after doing so.) Which probably would have happened had he succeeded on Jan. 6th. I don't think Joe Biden would be alive today in that case.

[N.E. Brigand]

If I'm reading this correctly, one of Donald Trump's attorneys said in court this morning that a president who assassinates his political opponent can only be prosecuted for that crime if he's first impeached in the House and convicted in the Senate for it.

What Trump's attorneys fail to consider is that if they were to prevail with this argument in the end (i.e., at the Supreme Court), President Biden would be legally permitted ... to have Trump arrested and shipped off to Guantanamo, or worse.

Or as Eric Columbus put it: "Trump's position is that Biden can kill him if 34 senators approve."

Columbus also notes that Donald Trump's attorneys argued in 2021 that he couldn't be impeached after leaving office -- and a number of Republican senators said that's why they were voting against conviction -- so what Trump's argument today amounts to is the claim that president should be able to murder their opponents during their final weeks in office. (Or resigns right after doing so.) Which probably would have happened had he succeeded on Jan. 6th. I don't think Joe Biden would be alive today in that case.

And Luppe Luppen points out that there's an easy solution for a President who wants to kill his political opponent and not even worry about impeachment: he can just have all members of the Senate assassinated.

Again, that's if Donald Trump's position were to be upheld in the courts.

[Sunsilver]

"But it would stop with that, alas!"

N.E. Brigand, I think you mean WOULDN'T stop with that. Because dictatorships only get worse as time goes by...

[Voronwë the Faithful]

An excellent and detailed discussion about how long Trump's appeal is likely to delay the case by the folks at Just Security.

How Long Will Trump’s DC Immunity Appeal Take? Analyzing the Alternative Timelines

[N.E. Brigand]

"But it would stop with that, alas!"

N.E. Brigand, I think you mean WOULDN'T stop with that. Because dictatorships only get worse as time goes by...

Ack! Yes, I accidentally skipped the key word not while quoting Galadriel.

She'd put things to rights. That's how it would begin.

[Sunsilver]

I didn't realize you were quoting Galadriel. Think I'm due for a rewatch of the movies...lol!

[Jude]

That line unfortunately didn't make it into the movie, as I recall.

"That is how it would begin, but it would not stop with that, alas!"

Can you guess the context?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I think I am safe in saying that N.E.B. is much more likely to quote Tolkien than Jackson/Boyens/Walsh.

Jude, yes, I can guess the context.